sci.physics.relativity

On Sep 14, 10:26 am, Uwe Hayek wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > On Sep 13, 2:41 am, "harry" < ...@ >
> > wrote:
> >> "Uwe Hayek" wrote in message
>
> >>news:46e8359d$0$233$e4fe514c@ ...
>
> >>> Variable inertia.
> >>> Why does everyone has so much trouble with this concept ?
> >> Everyone? Only SOME people have trouble with the variable inertia /
> >> relativistic mass concept.
>
> >>> After all, everything in physics is variable,
> >> Everything??
>
> >>> so why should inertia remain constant, and not be caused by something else
> >>> physical ?
> >>> The last thing fish would study is water, and the last thing humans will
> >>> study is inertia.
> >>> A clock is an inertiameter.
> >> :-))
>
> >> Harald
>
> > I guess you could call a clock == 1/inertiameter,
> > but then improve on the concept.
> > I sniff a buck, a "wrist watch" that tells you how
> > much you weigh.
> > Regards
> > Ken
>
> You still missed the point somewhat.
>
> Why do I say that a clock is an inertiameter ?
>
> In regions with equal inertia, clocks will run at the same rate.
>
> In regions with higher inertia clocks will run slower than clocks in
> regions with lower inertia.

Ok, that's been known since the early 20th
century, though described with better
precision.

> I understand your idea of the wristwatch, but then you refer to an
> *accelerometer*, by measuring how fast a body is accelerated, under a
> known force, one can determine its mass.
>
> I do not see how you can accomplish this in a wristwatch, unless by some
> very sophisticated software, and then I will still doubt the quality of
> the measurement, and its commercial succes.

I'm working' on it.

> Some 5 years ago I saw an entertaining programme on the bbc, on the
> longitude problem and they showed of lot of charlatans trying to solve
> it. Eventually Harrison came up with a solution and then it dawned on me
> when I posed myself this question :
>
> What was Harrison measuring ?
>
> /wiki/John_Harrison
>
> Harrison was relying on the fact that spacetime on the surface of the
> Earth is sufficiently flat !

Yeah, Harrison sounds like a good man.

> Uwe Hayek.

Regards
Ken